Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Riddhima Singh (Minor) Through Her ... vs Central Board Of Secondary Education ... on 30 September, 2020

Author: Jayant Nath

Bench: Jayant Nath

$~A-27
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+    W.P.(C) 6007/2019
     RIDDHIMA SINGH (MINOR) THROUGH HER FATHER
     SHAILE NDRA KUMAR SINGH                      ..... Petitioner
                      Through Mr.Shailendra        Kumar         Singh,
                              petitioner in person.
                      versus

          CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY
          EDUCATION AND ORS.                    ..... Respondents
                      Through  Mr.Amit Bansal and Ms.Seema Dolo,
                               Advocate for R-1/ CBSE.
                               Mr.Narender Singh Yadav and
                               Mr.Manu Prakash Upadhyay, Advs.
                               for R-2.
                               Ms.Aishwariya Rao and Mr.Sumit
                               Jain, Advs. for R-3/school.

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
                  ORDER

% 30.09.2020 This hearing is conducted through video conferencing.

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

1. to issue an writ of mandamus to the respondent no.1 to allow Petitioner to appear in Secondary and senior secondary Examinations conducted by respondent without any level of discrimination in examination or result with respect to regular students, failing which the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

2. This application is filed by the petitioner, who appears in person, seeking the following reliefs:

"1. to issue appropriate direction to respondents for analysis if 4 months of time is adequate for class IX study and completion of syllabus, failing which the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

2. to issue direction to respondents to pay compensation to petitioner, an amount of 10% of annual income of respondent no3 school and Trust/Society running respondent no.3 school for the period of 30 Months due to irrecoverable damage, or reasonable amount this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and irrecoverable damage in last 30 months to petitioner.

3. to give punishment to respondent no.3 for making such intentional crime as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping view to prevent such cases in future.

4. to give direction to respondent No.1 to make mandatory provision for school management committee for its affiliated school, where parents representative to be selected as per procedure described by state in RTE rules in time bound manner.

5. to issue direction that in absence of school management committee and its members details on school website/public domain, respondent No.1 affiliated schools will be prohibited to collect fee or issue any new rules or direction of school.

6. to issue direction that all rules/regulations/actions in school related to students, books, etc... will be valid only when such rules/actions is supported with details of minutes of meeting of school management committee along with attendance of school management committee members.

7. to issue direction to respondent No.1 to pay compensation to petitioner for not fulfilling its responsibility as stated by state in its response, towards responsibility of state against respondent no.1 affiliated unaided private schools.

8. to issue direction to respondent No.1 to adhere, accept, and fulfil responsibility as mentioned by state response towards responsibility of state against respondent no.1 affiliated unaided private schools.

9. to issue direction to respondent No.1 to audit irregularities of respondent no.3 school and also to check if Trust/Society running this school is really fit to run school.

10. to issue direction to respondent no.2 to take action against respondent no.3/school, as city magistrate investigation already given report that respondent no.3 debarred petitioner from school."

3. It is clear that the present application has no concerned or connection with the reliefs sought in the present writ petition.

4. Be that as it may, the petitioner is appearing in person. He was asked to explain as to what reliefs he wants in this application. Repeatedly a reference was made to the fact that initially the petitioner child was allegedly and illegally debarred from attending school. Thereafter, she has been admitted in Class VII and is presently studying in Class VIII whereas she should be actually studying in Class IX. My attention has been drawn to the order of this court dated 10.02.2020, which reads as follows:

1.The reliefs claimed in these applications are identical.

2. After having heard the father of the petitioner child, who appears in person, as well as Ms.Aishwarya Rao, who appears for respondent No.3 school, it is agreed by both sides that the applications can be disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner child will appear in Grade VII examination, which commences from 17.2.2020.

(ii) In case the petitioner child passes Grade VII examination, respondent No.3 school will hold Grade VIII examination for the petitioner child on 7.4.2020.

(iii) In case the petitioner child clears Grade VIII examination, she will be upgraded to Grade IX.

3. Furthermore, the Registry is directed to release Rs.79,560/- along with accrued interest to respondent No.3 school, which was deposited by the petitioner's father (i.e. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh) pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2019.

3.1 The needful will be done at the earliest.

4. This order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in this case and therefore, the same will not be cited as a precedent."

5. It appears that the petitioner child appeared in Class VII Exam, which she cleared and is now in Class VIII. However, the child has not appeared in Class VIII Exam, which was to be held on 07.04.2020 as per the above order.

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 school submits that this could not be done on account of present Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown and school is also presently not functioning. She also states that there is possibility of medical issues for the staffs and for the child if physical Exam is held in today's situation.

7. It was put to the petitioner as to whether the petitioner child wants to give physical exam of Class VIII. He states that the child would be willing to give exam in question.

8. Keeping in view the wishes of the petitioner and the order dated 10.02.2020, let respondent No.3 school hold Class VIII exam within four weeks from today. In case of any issue while conducting the exam, the petitioner child will not claim any damage from respondent No.3 school. In case, the petitioner child clears the exam in question, she will be admitted in Class IX.

9. Respondent No.3 school is permitted to open the school for conducting of such exam.

10. The application is disposed of as above.

JAYANT NATH, J.

SEPTEMBER 30, 2020/v